mandatory drug testing for welfare.

[Plaidman]

Some jobs require you to take drug testing. Hell, alot of times they may require it after even minor accidents. So if we have to take a piss to earn a paycheck by working, should welfare people do the same?

I'm for it. I may be bitter after seeing so much rampant welfare abuse, including people who get on it the EBT CASH (Used for diapers, rents, medicene, etc) To only use it at ATM to withdraw money to buy meth, beer, prostitutes, etc.

So hey, those who get on it should take it. After all, it is for people that need a boost and help with rent and food. It's a paycheck really. If they're abusing it by buying illegal drugs, then they use it. Welfare is to help people get back on their feet. Not a free pass for all the drugs and $200 bucks for junk food.

[fireheart17]

I like the idea, question is: what if the person has eaten something with poppy seeds? That's gonna set off the drug scanners.

[jackfaire]

I like the idea, question is: what if the person has eaten something with poppy seeds? That's gonna set off the drug scanners.

Then I would have been pegged long ago. I have eaten a poppy seed muffin before a drug test and not even a blip. Honestly it seems like the kind of thing the same people on welfare use as an excuse.

"Oh I would have gotten that job but they didn't believe that the positive was cuz of this muffin I had yeah that's it. "

I have never heard of or heard an upstanding self reliant person claim they scored a positive due to eating poppy seeds only people that tend to try to avoid work.

[daleduke17]

I'm for it, along with setting a maximum amount of time that one can be on welfare in their life. Say, five years.

[Plaidman]

I'm for it, along with setting a maximum amount of time that one can be on welfare in their life. Say, five years.

Ehh... Well, lets do another example. Say you are horribly maimed. Lose arms, legs, eye sight.

If you go by your pattren, they're fucked after five years, because disability is welfare.

It would matter of what welfare is for. If its "i'm too lazy to look for a job" then yeah, five years is plenty of time.

[Rebel]

Drug testing would be a good idea for people on welfare.
And it'd be best make it so they have to be retested every couple of months (too often isn't practical, too few makes it easy to slip through the cracks).

In Australia (at least where I lived) you had to be an active job searcher (2 jobs applied to a week) to be eligible. You also had to show proof of a low income fairly often for any other sort of financial help.

Another way to to it was to get people to 'Work for the Dole'. This is where jobs that are usually ignored or avoided (trash pickup, sand dune maintenance, etc) would be done by people who are 'unable' to find a permanent job. They would have to clock in a certain number of hours a week to be eligible for their welfare check.

Less chance both of these ways for people to stay on welfare, laze about, and spend their money on drugs and booze.

EDIT: The 2nd idea is for reasonably healthy people on welfare. It would obviously be different for people with permanent serious disabilities.

[daleduke17]

Ehh... Well, lets do another example. Say you are horribly maimed. Lose arms, legs, eye sight.

If you go by your pattren, they're fucked after five years, because disability is welfare.

It would matter of what welfare is for. If its "i'm too lazy to look for a job" then yeah, five years is plenty of time.

Yes, the "too lazy to work" group. Too me, SSI/Disability is different than the known style of "welfare".

[Kimmik]

Ehh... Well, lets do another example. Say you are horribly maimed. Lose arms, legs, eye sight.

If you go by your pattren, they're fucked after five years, because disability is welfare.

It would matter of what welfare is for. If its "i'm too lazy to look for a job" then yeah, five years is plenty of time.

Disability is not welfare.. it is money that you put in the system most times

[Tanasi]

The food networks show Food Detectives ran a poppy seed experiment and bascially you had to eat a dozen or more really big poppy seed bagels to test positive.

I think anyone receiving a goverment check (not social security checks or pension checks) should have to drug test. Fail money is cut off until you test negative and tested monthly for a year. Second positive you're cut off for a year or maybe permanently.

[lordlundar]

I like the idea, question is: what if the person has eaten something with poppy seeds? That's gonna set off the drug scanners.

Ones you can buy off a shelf at a drug store can report a false positive if you consume an abundance of them. Professional tests which the government would require in this case are far more accurate and test for other chemicals that are found instead of just opiates.

[Rapscallion]

What would be the effect of someone being cut off from their welfare for this reason?

I'm genuinely curious. I don't have an answer to the problem, but I wonder if there's a knock-on effect that hasn't been considered. The logical answer is that they'd increase illegal activities to regain their level of income. However, if they're able to afford drugs and so forth on extra welfare cheques then they're going to be able to score more welfare via other means (such as paying people to stand in for them).

If crime increases, is the cost to the community more than the cost of the welfare saved?

I don't know, but it's worth considering.

Rapscallion

[NodmiTheSellout]

What people here are failing to think about is--and yes, I know--THE CHILDREN. Many people who collect welfare do so because they have children. I don't think it's appropriate to punish the kids of a drug addict by taking away their budget for food, clothing, etc..

Not to mention that 1. widespread drug testing is expensive, 2. it's been found unconstitutional by the fourth amendment (unlawful search and seizure).

Further edit, on researching the matter a bit:

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Much, much better idea, in my opinion. Drug addicts need help getting over their addiction, not to be thrown onto the streets and starved.

[Plaidman]

What people here are failing to think about is--and yes, I know--THE CHILDREN. Many people who collect welfare do so because they have children. I don't think it's appropriate to punish the kids of a drug addict by taking away their budget for food, clothing, etc..

Not to mention that 1. widespread drug testing is expensive, 2. it's been found unconstitutional by the fourth amendment (unlawful search and seizure).

Further edit, on researching the matter a bit:

Much, much better idea, in my opinion. Drug addicts need help getting over their addiction, not to be thrown onto the streets and starved.

In personal experence, the children aren't getting a dime in the first place. I was buying food for these two little girls that were trying to steal ramen from me, because their fucking dad wanted beer on his EBT, and refused to ever buy them anything. Hell, he fucking tried to tear their head off when they asked for juice. "NO! THIS IS MY MONEY! THIS MY BEER MONEY BECAUSE YOU TWO WERE ACCIDENTS!"

I finally snapped at him the one time he came in alone. I never saw ether of them again.

There was a story recently on Oprah, and a few in People with these four brothers who's parents were living like royality off welfare. What did the kids get? Ten seconds to eat a piece of a bread once a day, or the mother would put poison on it. They ended up going around neighborhoods at night stealing food from garbage bins. Once they were finally rescued, years after this abuse, they were all found to be massively malnorish, greatly undersize and underweight.

Another example is my aunt when she was a foster mother. She getting money off that. Her foster daughter's friends beat the shit out of her youngest son who was, 12? at the time. What does she do? Kick her son out. Because she got welfare off the daughter. It wasn't until the daughter stole from her did she finally kick her out and let her son back.

From what I seen at my job, and from what I read? Most drug addicts aren't using welfare for their kids at all. I mean fuck, alot of those bastards make their kids steal food if they wanna eat anything, they'll teach them, and if they get caught she isn't the one that gets in trouble, her kids do. If they're not caught, more free stuff for her.

The kids get punished enough over their parents treating them like garbage while they mooch off the system. A better deal, take away welfare, and put the kids in a decent home, otherwise they just end up like their parents, which means once again, all people that work for a living, are paying for more scum and their drug addictions.

As for the unconstitutional bit? How is it unlawful to not so? I bring up once again, several people get drug tested for jobs as it is, yes even the ones that don't do drugs or even look like it. They don't do it, they get fired. It's more then a sure bit that if you do this to these scum, there will be a surplus of welfare for those that do need it, and aren't going to use it to further their all night drinking and drug binges.

[Amanita]

Plaid, the mom in your story needs to be beaten bloody with a horsewhip. Ten seconds to eat a peice of bread or their "mom" would put poison on it? What a fucking cunt. I would volunteer to do the lashing myself.

Likewise the father who bought beer while his kids starved. People like that give all welfare recipients a bad name. Public scourging would be too good for these.

[Rebel]

Another suggestion would be to have all welfare come in the form of food vouchers which cannot be used to purchase anything else. It would not completely eliminate the instances of welfare being used for drugs (determined people will always find a way around that), but it would lower them.